§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that at Berkshire Quarter Sessions on May 20 Victor Dunn was sentenced to 8 years preventive detention for obtaining 1s. 10½d. by false pretences, and what steps they propose to take to prevent the award of such sentences contrary to the practice direction of the Lord Chief Justice.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT). My Lords, Dunn has applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against con- 588 viction and sentence. The case is therefore sub judice and it would be improper for me to comment on it. As the noble Lord is aware, my right honourable friend has no authority to restrict the powers of the courts to impose preventive detention.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, in reference to the first part of the noble Lord's Answer—which I fully accept; I know I cannot discuss this matter now—will he inform me in due course if leave to appeal is granted and, if so, the result of the appeal? With regard to the second part of his Answer, is he aware that it is now 28 months since the Lord Chief Justice made his practice direction, and if his right honourable friend has no power himself can he perhaps arrange for copies of that direction to be sent to all judges and others who have power of awarding sentence of preventive detention, since many of them may have been appointed since the original direction was issued? Could he not at least do that?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I will of course notify the noble Lord of the result of the appeal, if there is one, if he wishes me to do so. But it is quite improper for me to comment on the second supplementary.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord opposite that we should not in any way comment on a case which is sub judice until that situation has passed. On the general issue, while the Home Secretary cannot interfere with the process of the court, surely he has power if he thinks it right to do so, to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy to reduce sentence?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, the noble Lord is trying to get me to comment on the first part of the original Question by an indirect method. I decline to do so.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I precisely said that that was not what I was asking, and I had no intention of making any point myself. But the noble Lord said in the course of his observations, quite rightly, that the Home Secretary cannot interfere with the courts, and I should not like him to be able to do so. But on the general 589 issue, apart from this case, the Home Secretary has power, if he thinks it right, to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Prerogative of mercy and adjust or reduce sentence.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)My Lords, of course the Home Secretary has the duty of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, but I think it would be extremely unusual for such advice to be tendered before the ordinary processes of the courts have been gone through and, where there is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, for the Home Secretary to intervene before the matter has been before that Court.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHI am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy. I entirely agree with what he said, if I may say so, as I have made clear twice, especially about the sub judice issue.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, could the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, help a little further in this matter on the general question? Is it the case that we are completely helpless in this matter, particularly having regard to the fact that in the Appeal Court the Lord Chief Justice is repeatedly—as happened only this very week—quashing sentences of this kind? Must this machinery go on? Is there nothing we can do to re-advertise, as it were, the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, as I say, it would be quite improper for me to comment on any sentence given by the courts. With regard to the further supplementary which the noble Lord put, if he looks at the original Question he will see that the two matters have nothing to do with each other.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, can the noble Lord explain the difficulty in answering the second part of my noble friend's question, which has no relation to any particular sentence; and that is the question whether the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction has in fact been circulated to Judges and chairmen of quarter sessions who have been 590 appointed since the practice direction was first issued?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lady, that is not the second part of the Question. The second part of the Question asks:
… what steps they propose to take to prevent the award of such sentences …That is the Question on the Order Paper, if the noble Baroness will look at it, and that is a matter upon which I am not prepared to comment.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, it was part of my noble friend's supplementary question, and I think it has not been answered. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us what is the difficulty in answering that particular part of the Question. Whether it is the second, third or fourth part, I am not sure.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think it would be extremely unusual for the Home Office to send round circulars of that kind to recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions. A direction like that given by the Lord Chief Justice is usually recorded in Criminal Law books, and is available in these books for them to see. I think the House will agree with me that one has to be extremely careful about the dispatch of circulars from the Home Office to judges and others, as to the discharge of their duties.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, how long we have to wait for this abominable practice of preventive detention to be abolished? Everyone assumes that it is to be abolished. How much longer have we to wait? Could the noble Lord, or the Lord Chancellor, give us an answer as to when we might expect to have an answer about preventive detention? How long have the Government been considering this matter? How long are they going to go on considering whether to have this disgusting practice abolished?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, without agreeing with the adjectives used by the noble Lord, may I refer him, for a complete answer, to the answers I gave 591 to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham on January 21 and on April 13? At the moment I have nothing to add to those answers.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I had four similar answers during 1963, and that it was in January of 1963 that the Committee reported recommending the abolition of preventive detention? Is the noble Lord further aware that I did not ask the Home Secretary to send out circulars? I asked the noble Lord whether he would approach his right honourable friend to see whether it was possible to arrange for copies of this practice direction to be sent out. I still hope that some means might be found—by pigeon post or otherwise—to achieve that objective.